I understand what lockdowns were intended for. I simply dispute that they have done so. Any case where lockdowns have been argued to flatten the curve, there have also been other measures taken, in particular travel bans. However, better results have been achieved where no such lockdowns have occurred and it's not anecdotal when all of the of these following factors are cited along with those cases (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong) which clearly demonstrate excellent result and no such lockdowns.
1) results can be explained another way
2) it can not be proven numerically that lockdowns have had any real effect
3) overall death rates have not been favorable because other medical needs are largely ignored
4) The economic impact threatens the very healthcare system that the lockdowns were intended to save
5) it's simply unsustainable and people are going to get sick of it.
If I'm sunbathing on the beach, a hundred feet from anyone, I am safer than I am indoors. Sunlight kills germs too. If I am at the one grocery store that is allowed to operate within a kilometer of my residence, even with a mask on, I could come into contact with billions of fomites and bring the contagion back to my residence.
If there are no cases in my city and people can't visit my city, there will be no cases in my city. Any possible spread through regular supply lines could be traced and investigated. Any visitors who simply must visit my city can isolate for two weeks.
The real problem sticking out, to me, is that we are not quite seeing the apex in New York, but it's been completely locked down since early March. The average incubation period is 8 days (2-14 days) and from that one can only deduce that it continued spreading very rapidly after the lockdown was implemented.